Pushing back against the anti-Cell and Buu arcs majority sentiment here and elsewhere

[xarmyz]

*complexity of multiple timelines*

There is no complexity. Only stupidity and a plethora of plot-holes and inconsistencies. Seriously, even the best writers have trouble in making time-travel work. A guy who likes to draw poo on a stick, and makes things up as he goes, has it even harder with time travel.

Anyway, you are free to like these arcs the most. There are certainly elements I love, and I have fun watching bits from the arcs on YT every once in a while. But as a serious story, these two arcs offer by far the most easily observed neutral criticism. That's why so many people complain, because some elements are just that bad and easy to see as BS.

Until Time-travel is proving to work in scientific manner in the real world then fiction can say however it works as the plot says so. And I think that Toriyama's take is one of the more plausible takes. You can't really change the future just create an altnative timeline where things play out differently. And to my mind, "the most easily observed neutral criticism" is to say all of Dragon Ball is lowest common denominator trash or mindless action but I rebel against that view as boring and infuriating just as I rebel against yours and lacerman and all the rest. Your bias is not objective fact. And there is no such thing as neutral criticism just as there is no standard as what constitutes as "good writing" in the end.

[ABED]

no standard as what constitutes as "good writing" in the end.

I disagree. There are many facets of any given piece of art and how much weight one gives certain elements is subjective, but there are standards. If you introduce an element that doesn't pay off, that's bad writing because it's pointless. If you don't set something up well, it can break the rules of the fictional world, that's bad writing. Deus ex machina is bad writing because it's contrived.

[Ozotto]

The Android & Cell Arc(s) are my favourite and always have been, purely based on a personal opinion.

I do however understand there's a bit of change at the end of Namek... the story feels like it's been told and we're just continuing onto a whats next phase.
The Garlic Jr stuff just after doesn't help either.

But soon there after as a child my mind was blown by the events that unfolded... and all was forgiven for the pure awesomeness that was Trunks.

Tons of great moments... Final Flash, Big Bang, Warp Kamehameha, Father Son Kamehameha.
Every Z fighter gets a bit of fight time.
I love the ending of Super 13...
Nothing beat the movies and games that had all 4 super saiyans square off against an enemy. Broly/ Hatchiyack.

[lancerman]

That is the reason. Time travel is complete fiction. It can have whatever rules you want, as long as you're consistent with them.

Okay in the vast majority of stories that involve time travel, where time travel messed up a timeline, they tend to give cause and effect reasons why. They didn't here. So either it was a lazy in story time line changing plot, or it was using time travel as a way to cover up out of story changes. Either way not good quality story telling.

That IS the reason. Time travel by its nature screws things up. It's not lazy. The fact of traveling through time and the butterfly effect of something small is the cause. It's not lazy. Cell's info dump exposition to Piccolo is lazy. Goku keep information from his friends and Gohan because Toriyama wanted to keep Gohan's power as a reveal was lazy storytelling.

Time Travel by nature does not screw things up. There's different types of time travel and some can be in completely fixed timelines. In any good fiction that uses time travel and has it mess up the timeline it always gives the cause and effect that changed the timeline. Butterfly Effect was a whole movie about it and it always went out of it's way to show the cause and effects of each change.

Time travel by ITSELF does NOT screw things up. There is an action that occurs in the original timeline that has an effect that manifests in a new timeline.

The changes to the timeline in Dragon Ball, especially on the Androids part, are not manifested as a result of any change that occurred. It's just said "oh it's time travel that must have done this" and then we moved on. That is bad/lazy writing.

This is good writing: Trunks went back in time and defeated Freeza. Gero happened to be monitoring Earth for signs of Goku after a significant time had passed after the Saiyan conflict. He observed Trunks defeating Freeza who was immeasurably more powerful than any fighters he had seen Goku face. Then he saw Trunks and Goku talk and assuming Goku now had more powerful allies decided he couldn't hope to create Androids that would be strong enough to defeat Goku, he needed new Robots that would be able to steal their energy and use it against them. So he decided to create 19 and 20, who were weaker but could actively drain energy. This caused him to stop developing 17 and 18 into mosnters which altered their personality. Gero with a more efficient body used his new powers to work on a failsafe which would become Cell just in case he couldn't create an Android who could defeat Goku he'd have an organic super weapon that could and that years in the future when he was done he could absorb the power tanks of the remaining Androids. Since Gero wasn't working on perfecting 17 and 18, he finished 19 and 20 at a faster rate because they were not as organic. This meant that Androids 19 and 20 attacked 6 months earlier and before Goku was able to feel the symptons of his heart virus and able to take the medicine and recover from it. As a result Goku, ended up sidelined.

This is bad writing: Oh there are two more Androids? The timeline must have changed. Oh Goku's heart virus took effect later? Time travel must have changed the timeline.]

Even in the most generous case it's incredibly lazy writing. In the more cynical case, Toriyama used it as an excuse for changes that were forced upon him and as crutch for when he wanted something to happen in the story.

[lancerman]

*complexity of multiple timelines*

There is no complexity. Only stupidity and a plethora of plot-holes and inconsistencies. Seriously, even the best writers have trouble in making time-travel work. A guy who likes to draw poo on a stick, and makes things up as he goes, has it even harder with time travel.

Anyway, you are free to like these arcs the most. There are certainly elements I love, and I have fun watching bits from the arcs on YT every once in a while. But as a serious story, these two arcs offer by far the most easily observed neutral criticism. That's why so many people complain, because some elements are just that bad and easy to see as BS.

Until Time-travel is proving to work in scientific manner in the real world then fiction can say however it works as the plot says so. And I think that Toriyama's take is one of the more plausible takes. You can't really change the future just create an altnative timeline where things play out differently. And to my mind, "the most easily observed neutral criticism" is to say all of Dragon Ball is lowest common denominator trash or mindless action but I rebel against that view as boring and infuriating just as I rebel against yours and lacerman and all the rest. Your bias is not objective fact. And there is no such thing as neutral criticism just as there is no standard as what constitutes as "good writing" in the end.

It's less about it happening and more about it not being explained why it happened. Nobody has a problem with a fluid cause and effect time travel story with alternate timelines. However, many of the changes were just completely unexplained and chalked up to "time travel ruins things". Again in the most objective case, they didn't bother to explain what about the time travel caused pretty significant changes. Changes that were significant enough to have massive effects on the plot.

[GamerSkull]

*complexity of multiple timelines*

There is no complexity. Only stupidity and a plethora of plot-holes and inconsistencies. Seriously, even the best writers have trouble in making time-travel work. A guy who likes to draw poo on a stick, and makes things up as he goes, has it even harder with time travel.

Anyway, you are free to like these arcs the most. There are certainly elements I love, and I have fun watching bits from the arcs on YT every once in a while. But as a serious story, these two arcs offer by far the most easily observed neutral criticism. That's why so many people complain, because some elements are just that bad and easy to see as BS.

Until Time-travel is proving to work in scientific manner in the real world then fiction can say however it works as the plot says so. And I think that Toriyama's take is one of the more plausible takes. You can't really change the future just create an altnative timeline where things play out differently. And to my mind, "the most easily observed neutral criticism" is to say all of Dragon Ball is lowest common denominator trash or mindless action but I rebel against that view as boring and infuriating just as I rebel against yours and lacerman and all the rest. Your bias is not objective fact. And there is no such thing as neutral criticism just as there is no standard as what constitutes as "good writing" in the end.

It's less about it happening and more about it not being explained why it happened. Nobody has a problem with a fluid cause and effect time travel story with alternate timelines. However, many of the changes were just completely unexplained and chalked up to "time travel ruins things". Again in the most objective case, they didn't bother to explain what about the time travel caused pretty significant changes. Changes that were significant enough to have massive effects on the plot.

I've always wondered what exactly Trunks did when he came to the past that caused the androids 19 and 20 to appear rather than 17 and 18. (yeah, I know this is actually because of editorial changes), but no attempt at explaining what caused this difference exists. Was it because of Cell? That's what I've always taken it as but what exactly did he do to cause it?

I guess it may not have mattered as much in the grand scheme of things but I'd rather not be left with questions.

Also, why was it that when Future Trunks came back and killed 17 and 18 that Cell was unable to kill him but apparently the main Cell was still able to. I hope I worded that right. LOL
(Although with this one, I might actually just be missing something or forgot some plot point so I need to be reminded).

[NintendoBlaze53]

I can understand the problem you're having OP. But have you ever thought your personal opinions and your critical opinions can be separate? Just cause an arc is your favourite, doesn't mean it has to be the best arc.

I got into this franchise with the Cell Games and Buu arcs. Budokai 2 was my youth and big first exposure to Dragon Ball. Upon watching Kai The Final Chapters my love for Buu Arc especially was renewed with so many great moments in this arc that I enjoy and remember fondly. Despite that, it is not what I consider the best arc, however I think I do consider it my favourite. I consider the Saiyan Arc the best arc in Dragon Ball from a critical stand point, however from a personal view I love the Buu Arc most. I see all the problems with the Buu Arc, acknowledge them, and still love it.

Same can be said with my thoughts on Super and the Future Trunks Arc, yes it's flawed, in some cases massively, but I love it. There is nothing wrong with liking something which many people consider bad. Gaffer Tape put it best

Like what you want to like. Explore why you like what you like. Be critical of what you like. Thinking is the name of the game. That's what places like this forum are for. Nobody's telling you what to think. Nobody's trying to stop you from having fun. That doesn't mean that your viewpoints won't be challenged, and maybe you'll come away thinking differently about certain things. I know this forum has changed and shaped my views on many things over the years. But there's nothing bad about that. And even if you do discover "flaws" that you end up agreeing with, that doesn't mean you have to stop loving it.

[ABED]

Time Travel by nature does not screw things up.

How do you know? Time travel isn't real! You keep taking this hardline stance on fictional concept. It can have whatever rules a writer wants as long as they adhere to them. It's not really a story about time travel. It's an element, but it's not about that.

the more cynical case, Toriyama used it as an excuse for changes that were forced upon him and as crutch for when he wanted something to happen in the story.

This is a misunderstanding about the nature of the creative process. We know his editors wanted something else, but I'm pretty certain that Toriyama had enough stroke that had he wanted to keep 19 and 20, he would've. Nothing was forced upon him.

This is good writing:

That's not good writing. You aren't writing. You are outlining, and your story isn't any better. It's all in the execution. and every single time travel story has issues. The closed loop theory is dogshit, but I'll go with it if the actual characters and stories are interesting (e.g. The Terminator). Point is, it's all BS and requires suspension of disbelief. Look at it as no more than a plot device to get characters somewhere. The real story isn't about time traveling.

[Super_Divine_Genki]

I've always wondered what exactly Trunks did when he came to the past that caused the androids 19 and 20 to appear rather than 17 and 18.

It's not explicitly stated from what I remember in the anime, but I imagine that the scenarios in F.Trunks timeline and the main timeline played out in a similar way(#19 & #20 appearing at the island), minus the Goku dying part. We have to remember that F.Trunks didn't have first hand recollection of those events because he was an infant at the time -- he only knew that there were the two cyborgs, #17 & #18, from his own experiences.

He did not recognize #19 and #20 (main timeline) because they had long been destroyed by the time he was of age to have conscious perception of the world. It's presumed that #19 (F.Trunks timeline) was defeated by either Vegeta (who was shown to have achieved SSJ) or Piccolo, Gero still managed to escape and activate the other two cyborgs, and the story of that timeline proceeded onwards with #17 and #18 taking nearly everyone out, including Gero. With Goku already passed on from illness, the cyborg duo didn't have any specific goal anymore which then lead to them just running amok after some time and being destructive killing machines. Therefore, the times of certain events taking place would differ as well as how they played out (ex., #16 activated only in the main timeline). I'm sure that I'm not filling in all of the blanks, but that's the gist of it, and hope that it makes sense. Unfortunately, the arc leaves much room for headcanon (like, would Goku have had it in him to kill Freeza and Cold in that unseen battle on Earth? We know that he did, but I would've really liked to have seen how that whole thing went down.)



I'm with ABED about the time travel stuff. It's a complete fictional element/plot device and as long as it keeps within the parameters of the story being told, it shouldn't be such an issue. For Toriyama to even attempt to go explore that whole idea was a bold move, but it somehow mostly worked out even though every minute detail involving the effects of time travel hadn't been explained, imo. We don't know one way or the other.

[precita]

Buu had:

- Better worldbuilding, the timeskip and the world of the Kai's had never been seen before

- Gohan in High School and Great Saiyaman along with Videl

- The world tournament was a nice concept with funny moments from Trunks/Goten and 18/Mr. Satan

- Babidi's henchmen had some decent warm-up fights and Dabura is awesome

- Goku Vs. Majin Vegeta which was fantastic

- Fat Buu's initial release, destroying Gohan and Supreme Kai, killing Dabura.

- Vegeta's sacrifice

- Mr. Satan befriending Buu and almost saving the world again

- The entire main cast was HIDING from Buu, the first time they ever hid from a villain

- SSJ3's power up was insanely awesome the first time

- Super Buu is a fantastic design and my favorite of the villains

- Gotenks Vs. Buu in the time chamber with the ghost kamikaze attacks was amazing

- Gohan got powered up, if short lived, was awesome

- Vegito is great

- Kid Buu was a nice final villain, and he destroys the Earth. First time we ever see the Earth destroyed and the stakes are raised

- Goku and Vegeta working together side by side for the first time ever

- Mr. Satan getting people of Earth to contribute energy

- Fat Buu Vs. Kidd Buu

- The final Spirit Bomb


Lastly every character was in character and getting toward their endgame status because the series was ending. No character was treated like a joke, the humans were retiring, Goku and Vegeta had changed considerably from the Cell saga, etc.


Toriyama's writing and world building is far beyond anything seen in Super. Lastly it's easy to forget all this stuff WAS BRAND NEW at the time. Super just re-uses old concepts constantly like fusions and new forms, etc.

[ABED]

What great world building?

One of my biggest issues, aside from bad pacing, with the Buu arc is that Toriyama keeps coming up with these big moments one after the other that lead to very little. SS3, passing the torch to Gotenks, passing the torch to Gohan, Gohan's power up, fusion, Buu's millionth transformation.

This is an unpopular opinion, but I find the Great Saiyaman stuff boring and unfunny.

[Cipher]

I suppose what, I'm asking here, is why can't I think that that Late Z era is the high part of the franchise, why must I be forced to conform to the opinions of the majority here including some very prominent people in the fandom. Why can't my views be just as valid as your own?

To want to love a thing your own way and not be constantly told that you are wrong to do so, that's not unreasonable thing to want, is it?

I think you're arguing against a strawman. Nobody's forcing you to think in a different way than you want to (and considering how you've never actually engaged in any discussions yourself and have just been reading other people's, this is especially ridiculous). Discussions are meant to showcase different perspectives. Seems just like you can't handle different opinions well.

Is it a strawman when so far not a single person here has really agreed with me albeit in a respectful manner. (all right, VegettoEX is totally neutral here) and you rather callously come in and say basically "Oh, You are just too thinned-skin, get over it." And Other people's opinions can effect one's own if they don't have much in the way of confidence you know. That is why I couldn't keep silent any longer.

The Boo arc is my absolute favorite, and I've certainly seen that echoed here, even if it's not the most popular choice. Members like Gaffer Tape (via his excellent YouTube Dragon Ball Dissection series under the name MistareFusion) have put forth mostly vary fair criticisms of the Namek arc, etc.

You're in good company. As far as the arcs discussed here, while the Namek arc would rank highly for me and is in many ways the culmination of, and a natural climax to, DB to that point, it's hardly a satisfying conclusion for every character (Gohan is all setup and no payoff), which stands out, and I think as an ending the Boo arc works better in both scale and tone in many ways. But to each their own.

Don't let other people's bad hot takes neuter your own enthusiasm for the series, or anything else you enjoy. Especially if you can verbalize whatever it is you enjoy about whatever parts you do.

[ABED]

(Gohan is all setup and no payoff),

Not true. It was paid off in the Saiyan arc. He brings his power under control, he finds his courage, and helps defeat Vegeta. There can be multiple pay offs, but there was nothing in that first arc that necessitates Gohan having to become the strongest.

[precita]

What great world building?

One of my biggest issues, aside from bad pacing, with the Buu arc is that Toriyama keeps coming up with these big moments one after the other that lead to very little. SS3, passing the torch to Gotenks, passing the torch to Gohan, Gohan's power up, fusion, Buu's millionth transformation.

This is an unpopular opinion, but I find the Great Saiyaman stuff boring and unfunny.

I meant world building learning about all the Kai's, the 4 quardrants of the universe, Buu being sealed away, etc.

Remember all the way till the end of the Cell arc we only knew about King Kai. We had no idea how big Otherworld was.

[GamerSkull]

What great world building?

One of my biggest issues, aside from bad pacing, with the Buu arc is that Toriyama keeps coming up with these big moments one after the other that lead to very little. SS3, passing the torch to Gotenks, passing the torch to Gohan, Gohan's power up, fusion, Buu's millionth transformation.

This is an unpopular opinion, but I find the Great Saiyaman stuff boring and unfunny.

I meant world building learning about all the Kai's, the 4 quardrants of the universe, Buu being sealed away, etc.

Remember all the way till the end of the Cell arc we only knew about King Kai. We had no idea how big Otherworld was.

You have point... but I feel that some world-building might have been unnecessary. I don't think we needed to know those.

In fact, before that I believe King Kai was supposed to just be the Lord of Worlds and no other ones were alluded to.

[ABED]

Okay, that's world building, but it's not great world building.